Maskerade: Covid-1984 and Evidence-Free Compulsory Masking

July 6, 2020

By Dr. Andrew Bostom

Image for post

Image for post

An American Doctor demonstrates the futility of mask-wearing to combat Covid-19

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

W.H. Kellogg, M.D., infectious diseases  and then- of the California State Board of Health, made this rueful, brutally honest 1920  on the failure of masking to contain rampant influenza spread during the  1918 influenza pandemic:

“The masks, contrary to expectation, were worn cheerfully and universally, and also, contrary to expectation of what should follow under such circumstances, no effect on the epidemic curve was to be seen. Something was plainly wrong with our hypotheses.”

A century later, plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose — the more things change, the more they stay the same.

The current much less lethal coronavirus COVID-19 epidemic (i.e.,  death rate than the 1918 pandemic flu) is clearly waning. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is  to declare its epidemic phase over after 10 consecutive weeks of  COVID-19 mortality, which has markedly reduced the virus’ U.S. weekly death toll. Despite these hard, objective outcome data, recent bipartisan, coercive admonitions for compulsory masking have been pronounced by Democratic Party presidential candidate , Speaker of the House  (D-Calif.), and Republican Texas Gov. .

Today’s hectoring rhetoric and accompanying national, state, or local mandates notwithstanding, 100 years after Dr. Kellogg’s there is still no controlled evidence that supports masking, especially in non-health-care settings, to attenuate the epidemic spread of respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.

A controlled study  in “Nature Medicine,” April 3, 2020, indicated that properly fitted  might reduce human non-COVID-19, cold-causing coronavirus emission into exhaled aerosols and large respiratory droplets, among patients acutely ill with respiratory infections.

However, these investigators also  that in samples collected from those comparably ill patients randomly allocated to the group not wearing masks, “the majority of participants with influenza virus and coronavirus infection did not shed detectable virus in respiratory droplets or aerosols.”

Furthermore, viral “shedders” transmitted small amounts of virus, and the authors  that “prolonged close contact would be required for transmission to occur, even if transmission was primarily via aerosols, as has been described for rhinovirus [i.e., common] colds.”

These limited, immediate-term experimental  — equivocal at best — provide no rational, evidence-based justification for daily, prolonged mask usage by the general public to prevent infection with COVID-19.

Moreover, a subsequent  of ten controlled trials assessing extended, real-world, non-health-care-setting mask usage revealed that masking did not reduce the rate of laboratory-proven infections with the respiratory virus influenza. The  from this unique report — published May 2020 by the CDC’s own “” “Emerging Infectious Diseases” — are directly germane to the question of masking to prevent COVID-19 infection and merit some elaboration.

Ten randomized, controlled trials reporting estimates of face mask effectiveness in lowering rates of laboratory-confirmed influenza within the community, published between 2008 and 2016, were , applying a rigorous, standardized methodology.

One study evaluated mask usage by Hajj pilgrims to Mecca, two university-setting studies assessed the efficacy of face masks for prevention of confirmed influenza among student campus residents over five months of surveillance, and seven household studies examined the impact of masking infected persons only (one), household contacts of infected persons only (one), or both groups (five). None of these studies, individually, or their aggregated, pooled analysis, which enhanced the overall “statistical power” to detect smaller effects,  a significant benefit of masking for the reduction of confirmed influenza infection (also see ). The authors further concluded with a  that using face masks improperly might “increase the risk for (viral) transmission.”

Washington state’s June 24 government-mandated public masking  for the alleged prevention of COVID-19 infections was immediately  in a court with statewide jurisdiction. Although the plaintiffs failed to cite the May 2020 meta-analysis  above, they did refer to an April 2020 “New England Journal of Medicine” (NEJM)  on masking to support their claim of “scant evidence” that mask-wearing “does anything to reduce transmission of COVID-19.” Indeed, the NEJM citation provided was  in the legal filing, :

We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to COVID-19 as face-to-face contact within six feet with a patient with symptomatic COVID-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes).

The chance of catching COVID-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.

Most importantly, the plaintiffs  how this arbitrary, evidence-free , which requires “Every person in Washington state [to] wear a face covering that covers their nose and mouth when in any indoor or outdoor public setting,” is “invasive” and “coercive,” :

… by requiring them [plaintiffs] to wear face masks the government is essentially compelling them to support [WA] Gov. Jay Inslee’s position on a matter subject to controversial public debate in violation of their freedom of conscience. The Washington State Constitution prohibits compelling individuals to speak against their conscience. Further, the citizens say wearing masks has now become a ‘virtue signal’ rather than a real safety precaution. Compelling free individuals to wear face masks forces them to espouse support for the scientifically unsupported lockdown measures and the draconian government intrusion into citizens’ daily lives.

Dr. D.A. Henderson (1928–2016) was an indefatigable, iconic public health steward who  the successful global campaign to eradicate a genuine plague, variola virus: . Henderson’s salient observations from a  provide a cogent rebuttal to the prevailing totalitarian imposition of irrational lockdowns and masking edicts to ostensibly “combat” COVID-19.

There are no historical observations or scientific studies that support the confinement by quarantine of groups of possibly infected people for extended periods in order to slow the spread of influenza. …

It is difficult to identify circumstances in the past half-century when large-scale quarantine has been effectively used in the control of any disease. The negative consequences of large-scale quarantine are so extreme (forced confinement of sick people with the well; complete restriction of movement of large populations; difficulty in getting critical supplies, medicines, and food to people inside the quarantine zone) that this mitigation measure should be eliminated from serious consideration. …

Home quarantine also raises ethical questions. …

In Asia during the SARS period [a coronavirus like COVID-19, which caused localized Asian outbreaks during ], many people in the affected communities wore surgical masks when in public. But studies have shown that the ordinary surgical mask does little to prevent inhalation of small droplets bearing influenza virus. The pores in the mask become blocked by moisture from breathing, and the air stream simply diverts around the mask. There are few data available to support the efficacy of N95 or surgical masks outside a healthcare setting. N95 masks need to be fit-tested to be efficacious and are uncomfortable to wear for more than an hour or two.

Henderson  with this sober warning:

The problems in implementing such measures are formidable, and secondary effects of absenteeism and community disruption as well as possible adverse consequences, such as loss of public trust in government and stigmatization of quarantined people and groups, are likely to be considerable. …

Experience has shown that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted. Strong political and public health leadership to provide reassurance and to ensure that needed medical care services are provided are critical elements. If either is seen to be less than optimal, a manageable epidemic could move toward catastrophe.

Hope springs eternal that the rational, caring public health mindset advocated by Dr. Henderson will re-emerge “unmasked” and be applied, if belatedly, to the management of COVID-19.

Andrew Bostom, M.D., M.S., is an associate professor of family medicine (research) at the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University.
Dr. Bostom is a trained 
, and .


Posted in medical, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Coronavirus Hoax: Overhyped To Bring About More Tyranny



Governments love crises because when the people are fearful they are more willing to give up freedoms for promises that the government will take care of them. After 9/11, for example, Americans accepted the near-total destruction of their civil liberties in the PATRIOT Act’s hollow promises of security.

It is ironic to see the same Democrats who tried to impeach President Trump last month for abuse of power demanding that the Administration grab more power and authority in the name of fighting a virus that thus far has killed less than 100 Americans.

Declaring a pandemic emergency on Friday, President Trump now claims the power to quarantine individuals suspected of being infected by the virus and, as Politico writes, “stop and seize any plane, train or automobile to stymie the spread of contagious disease.”

He can even call out the military to cordon off a US city or state.

Trending: COVID Emergency Physician FIRED For Speaking at “White Coat Summit” Press Conference Addressing Coronavirus Misinformation

State and local authoritarians love panic as well.

The mayor of Champaign, Illinois, signed an executive order declaring the power to ban the sale of guns and alcohol and cut off gas, water, or electricity to any citizen.

The governor of Ohio just essentially closed his entire state.

The chief fearmonger of the Trump Administration is without a doubt Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health.

Fauci is all over the media, serving up outright falsehoods to stir up even more panic.

He testified to Congress that the death rate for the coronavirus is ten times that of the seasonal flu, a claim without any scientific basis.

On Face the Nation, Fauci did his best to further damage an already tanking economy by stating, “Right now, personally, myself, I wouldn’t go to a restaurant.”

He has pushed for closing the entire country down for 14 days.

Over what? A virus that has thus far killed just over 5,000 worldwide and less than 100 in the United States? By contrast, tuberculosis, an old disease not much discussed these days, killed nearly 1.6 million people in 2017.

Where’s the panic over this?

If anything, what people like Fauci and the other fearmongers are demanding will likely make the disease worse.

The martial law they dream about will leave people hunkered down inside their homes instead of going outdoors or to the beach where the sunshine and fresh air would help boost immunity.

The panic produced by these fearmongers is likely helping spread the disease, as massive crowds rush into Walmart and Costco for that last roll of toilet paper.

The madness over the coronavirus is not limited to politicians and the medical community.

The head of the neoconservative Atlantic Council wrote an editorial this week urging NATO to pass an Article 5 declaration of war against the COVID-19 virus!

Are they going to send in tanks and drones to wipe out these microscopic enemies?

People should ask themselves whether this coronavirus “pandemic” could be a big hoax, with the actual danger of the disease massively exaggerated by those who seek to profit – financially or politically – from the ensuing panic.

That is not to say the disease is harmless.

Without question, people will die from coronavirus.

Those in vulnerable categories should take precautions to limit their risk of exposure.

But we have seen this movie before.

Government over-hypes a threat as an excuse to grab more of our freedoms.

When the “threat” is over, however, they never give us our freedoms back.



Posted in Constitution, hoax, medical, propaganda, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

High School Teacher in Michigan Fired for Saying ‘Trump Is Our President’ on Social Media

Official White House Photo by Tia Dufour

A popular high school teacher and coach was fired by a Michigan school district after an extremely offensive tweet he made earlier this month.

Justin Kucera, who teaches social studies and is the varsity baseball coach in the Walled Lake school district, expressed his support for Trump’s speech on reopening schools. “I’m done being silent,” he tweeted. “@realDonaldTrump is our president.”

Kucera told the Washington Free Beacon that after he posted the tweet, the principal of the school and the district superintendent told him to resign or he’d be fired.

“I was required to meet with [human resources], the superintendent, and my principal [on July 10]. They initially took my statement on why I tweeted those tweets and they told me they would have a decision about my future employment in the upcoming days. When they completed the meeting, I was told I had the option to either be fired or resign.” Kucera said.

It is not clear whether Kucera had achieved tenure yet, but the school district likely faces a discrimination lawsuit.

According to Kucera, his tweet was intended to unify, rather than divide. Instead, it cost him his job. Multiple sources told the Free Beacon that Kucera never brought politics into the classroom.

“I know a lot of people are just rooting for Trump to fail, and I don’t think that anybody should do that,” Kucera said. “Agree with him or not, you should want the president to do well. I apologized that [my tweet] brought so much negative attention, but I’m not sorry for what I said.”

The Free Beacon reports that other teachers in the district have expressed political views without retribution, “Paulette Loe, a now-retired Walled Lake Western teacher, encouraged students to read an article from the Atlantic about ‘how to beat Trump’ while still employed. Nicole Estes, a kindergarten teacher in the district, called Trump a ‘sociopath’ and a ‘narcissist’ on Facebook in 2016 and is still employed at Keith Elementary School.”


Matt Margolis is the author of the new book Airborne: How The Liberal Media Weaponized The Coronavirus Against Donald Trumpand the bestselling book The Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama. You can follow Matt on Twitter @MattMargolis




Posted in Donald Trump, education, leftist bullying, liberal intolerance/persecution, neoliberals, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Supplementing With Zinc and Copper: A Balancing Act

April 24, 2020 • Jennifer Greer, ND, MEd

Given the ubiquitous coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic, immune support is at the forefront of everyone’s minds. Various vitamins and minerals are flying off the shelf because of their recognized immune-supportive qualities, including zincvitamin C, and vitamin D.*1

When supplementing any nutrient, it’s important to consider the appropriate amount to take. If intake is too low, then the desired results might not occur. If supplementation is too high, then negative side-effects could occur.

The Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) suggests a nutrient’s daily average intake. Although the RDA is the amount needed to prevent a deficiency, it’s not necessarily a therapeutic amount. The RDAs are specific to life stage and gender group for healthy individuals.2

The Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) is the highest daily amount of a nutrient that is unlikely to cause an adverse effect. This limit applies when a nutrient is being consumed at higher, therapeutic levels for an extended period of time, such as in cases of deficiency, illness, and research participation.2

Zinc supplementation plays an important role for individuals who are deficient or who don’t get enough zinc from their diet. Since our bodies cannot make zinc, it is considered an essential mineral – one that must be obtained from food or supplementation. At any given time, our bodies store 2-3 grams of zinc in our bones and muscles. Some of that zinc is depleted each day as it is used in a variety of functions throughout our bodies.2-4

A low level of zinc can be associated with age, eating a vegetarian or vegan diet, compromised immunity, severe burns, and intravenous nutrition. Although severe zinc deficiency is uncommon, a mild deficiency can have a wide range of symptoms due to the use of zinc in so many bodily functions.2

One consideration when supplementing zinc involves the interaction between zinc and copper, another essential mineral.

The body uses copper in energy production and to support bone, skin, neurological, and cardiovascular health.* Along with zinc, copper is a component of superoxide dismutase, an important antioxidant enzyme utilized by the immune system.* Although copper deficiency is rare, it can result from high levels of zinc intake because of a decreased ability to absorb and use copper from the diet.2,5-13

Therefore, several research studies have investigated the relationship between zinc intake and copper status. In those studies, the amount of zinc and the length of time taken were analyzed. A daily intake of 60 mg of zinc for 10 weeks (well above the UL) was associated with a decrease in copper status.13

In this study, the zinc intake came from 10 mg from the diet and 50 mg from a zinc supplement. Other sources of non-dietary zinc intake, in addition to zinc-specific supplements, include multi-vitamin/mineral supplements, zinc lozenges, and denture paste.

Additional studies indicate copper supplementation along with zinc helps balance absorption of both nutrients.14 Many alternative and integrative practitioners recommend a ratio of 15 mg of zinc to 1 mg of copper – similar to the ratio achieved if you remain within RDA guidelines.

For example, the average recommendation for zinc is 11 mg per day for healthy adults, slightly more or less based on gender and pregnancy or lactation status. For copper, the average recommendations is 1 mg daily for healthy adults.If you are taking a zinc supplement daily, then it may be time to consider the addition of a copper supplement as well. Or you can take a “multi” with an optimal balance of zinc and copper.

Curious about your levels of zinc and copper? Thorne’s easy at-home Heavy Metals Test provides insight into levels of heavy metals – cadmium, lead, and mercury – as well as the essential minerals zinc, copper, magnesium, and selenium, along with a personalized plan for optimizing your health.

An important note: No dietary supplement can diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease, including COVID-19. With the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, it is especially important to understand that no dietary supplement, no diet, and no lifestyle modifications – other than the recommended social distancing and hygiene practices – can prevent you from being infected with the COVID-19 virus. No current research supports the use of any dietary supplement to protect you from being infected with the COVID-19 virus.


  1. Gombart A, Pierre A, Maggini S. A review of micronutrients and the immune system – Working in harmony to reduce the risk of infection. Nutrients 2020;12(1).
  2. Food and Nutrition Board, Institute of Medicine. Dietary reference intakes for vitamin A, vitamin K, boron, chromium, copper, iodine, iron, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, silicon, vanadium, and zinc. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press; 2001:442-501.
  3. Lowe N, Medina M, Stammers A, et al. The relationship between zinc intake and serum/plasma zinc concentration in adults: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis by the EURRECA Network. Br J Nutr 2012;108(11):1962-1971.
  4. Lowe N, Dykes F, Skinner A, et al. EURRECA-Estimating zinc requirements for deriving dietary reference values. Cit Rev Food Sci Nutr 2013;53(10):1110-1123.
  5. Boukaiba N, Flament C, Acher S, et al. A physiological amount of zinc supplementation: effects on nutritional, lipid, and thymic status in and elderly population. Am J Clin Nutr 1993;57(4):566-572.
  6. Burke D, DeMicco F, Taper L, Ritchey S. Copper and zinc utilization in elderly adults. J Gerontol 1981;36(5):558-563.
  7. Festa M, Anderson H, Dowdy R, Ellersieck M. Effect of zinc intake on copper excretion and retention in men. Am J Clin Nutr 1985;41(2);285-292.
  8. Fischer P, Giroux A, L’Abbe M. Effect of zinc supplementation on copper status in adult men. Am J Clin Nutr 1984;40(4):743-746.
  9. Fosmire G. Zinc toxicity. Am J Clin Nutr 1990;51(2):225-227.
  10. Prasad A, Brewer G, Schoomaker E, Rabbani P. Hypocupremia induced by zinc therapy in adults. JAMA 1978;240(20):2166-2168.
  11. Samman S, Roberts D. The effect of zinc supplements on plasma zinc and copper levels and the reported symptoms in healthy volunteers. Med J Aust 1987;146(5):246-249.
  12. Samman S, Roberts D. The effect of zinc supplements on lipoproteins and copper status. Atherosclerosis 1988;70(3):247-252.
  13. Yadrick M, Kenney W, Winterfeldt E. Iron, copper, and zinc status: response to supplementation with zinc or zinc and iron in adult females. Am J Clin Nutr 1989;49(1):145-150.
  14. August D, Janghorbani M, Young V. Determination of zinc and copper absorption at three dietary Zn-Cu ratios by using stable isotope methods in young adults and elderly subjects. Am J Clin Nutr 1989;50(6):1457-1463.



Posted in diet and nutrition, medical, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

A Letter on Justice and Open Debate


July 7, 2020
The below letter will be appearing in the Letters section of the magazine’s October issue. We welcome responses at

Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts. But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second. The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.

This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.

Elliot Ackerman
Saladin Ambar, Rutgers University
Martin Amis
Anne Applebaum
Marie Arana, author
Margaret Atwood
John Banville
Mia Bay, historian
Louis Begley, writer
Roger Berkowitz, Bard College
Paul Berman, writer
Sheri Berman, Barnard College
Reginald Dwayne Betts, poet
Neil Blair, agent
David W. Blight, Yale University
Jennifer Finney Boylan, author
David Bromwich
David Brooks, columnist
Ian Buruma, Bard College
Lea Carpenter
Noam Chomsky, MIT (emeritus)
Nicholas A. Christakis, Yale University
Roger Cohen, writer
Ambassador Frances D. Cook, ret.
Drucilla Cornell, Founder, uBuntu Project
Kamel Daoud
Meghan Daum, writer
Gerald Early, Washington University-St. Louis
Jeffrey Eugenides, writer
Dexter Filkins
Federico Finchelstein, The New School
Caitlin Flanagan
Richard T. Ford, Stanford Law School
Kmele Foster
David Frum, journalist
Francis Fukuyama, Stanford University
Atul Gawande, Harvard University
Todd Gitlin, Columbia University
Kim Ghattas
Malcolm Gladwell
Michelle Goldberg, columnist
Rebecca Goldstein, writer
Anthony Grafton, Princeton University
David Greenberg, Rutgers University
Linda Greenhouse
Rinne B. Groff, playwright
Sarah Haider, activist
Jonathan Haidt, NYU-Stern
Roya Hakakian, writer
Shadi Hamid, Brookings Institution
Jeet Heer, The Nation
Katie Herzog, podcast host
Susannah Heschel, Dartmouth College
Adam Hochschild, author
Arlie Russell Hochschild, author
Eva Hoffman, writer
Coleman Hughes, writer/Manhattan Institute
Hussein Ibish, Arab Gulf States Institute
Michael Ignatieff
Zaid Jilani, journalist
Bill T. Jones, New York Live Arts
Wendy Kaminer, writer
Matthew Karp, Princeton University
Garry Kasparov, Renew Democracy Initiative
Daniel Kehlmann, writer
Randall Kennedy
Khaled Khalifa, writer
Parag Khanna, author
Laura Kipnis, Northwestern University
Frances Kissling, Center for Health, Ethics, Social Policy
Enrique Krauze, historian
Anthony Kronman, Yale University
Joy Ladin, Yeshiva University
Nicholas Lemann, Columbia University
Mark Lilla, Columbia University
Susie Linfield, New York University
Damon Linker, writer
Dahlia Lithwick, Slate
Steven Lukes, New York University
John R. MacArthur, publisher, writer
Susan Madrak, writer
Phoebe Maltz Bovy
, writer
Greil Marcus
Wynton Marsalis, Jazz at Lincoln Center
Kati Marton, author
Debra Mashek, scholar
Deirdre McCloskey, University of Illinois at Chicago
John McWhorter, Columbia University
Uday Mehta, City University of New York
Andrew Moravcsik, Princeton University
Yascha Mounk, Persuasion
Samuel Moyn, Yale University
Meera Nanda, writer and teacher
Cary Nelson, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Olivia Nuzzi, New York Magazine
Mark Oppenheimer, Yale University
Dael Orlandersmith, writer/performer
George Packer
Nell Irvin Painter, Princeton University (emerita)
Greg Pardlo, Rutgers University – Camden
Orlando Patterson, Harvard University
Steven Pinker, Harvard University
Letty Cottin Pogrebin
Katha Pollitt
, writer
Claire Bond Potter, The New School
Taufiq Rahim
Zia Haider Rahman, writer
Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen, University of Wisconsin
Jonathan Rauch, Brookings Institution/The Atlantic
Neil Roberts, political theorist
Melvin Rogers, Brown University
Kat Rosenfield, writer
Loretta J. Ross, Smith College
J.K. Rowling
Salman Rushdie, New York University
Karim Sadjadpour, Carnegie Endowment
Daryl Michael Scott, Howard University
Diana Senechal, teacher and writer
Jennifer Senior, columnist
Judith Shulevitz, writer
Jesse Singal, journalist
Anne-Marie Slaughter
Andrew Solomon, writer
Deborah Solomon, critic and biographer
Allison Stanger, Middlebury College
Paul Starr, American Prospect/Princeton University
Wendell Steavenson, writer
Gloria Steinem, writer and activist
Nadine Strossen, New York Law School
Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., Harvard Law School
Kian Tajbakhsh, Columbia University
Zephyr Teachout, Fordham University
Cynthia Tucker, University of South Alabama
Adaner Usmani, Harvard University
Chloe Valdary
Lucía Martínez Valdivia, Reed College
Helen Vendler, Harvard University
Judy B. Walzer
Michael Walzer
Eric K. Washington, historian
Caroline Weber, historian
Randi Weingarten, American Federation of Teachers
Bari Weiss
Sean Wilentz, Princeton University
Garry Wills
Thomas Chatterton Williams, writer
Robert F. Worth, journalist and author
Molly Worthen, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Matthew Yglesias
Emily Yoffe, journalist
Cathy Young, journalist
Fareed Zakaria

Institutions are listed for identification purposes only.



[This open letter which makes a compelling argument in favor of open inquiry and academic freedom has unfortunately drawn immediate criticism from the radical left. Some of the signers have now retracted their endorsement of the letter after receiving pressure from the radical left, perhaps fearful of also losing their jobs. This only validates the message of the letter, and shows how oppressive the radical left has become. ]


Posted in education, leftist bullying, liberal intolerance/persecution, political correctness, race card, social, social engineering, Uncategorized, Victim Culture | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Fragility of the Woke

Victor Davis Hanson  / 


A TikTok video that recently went viral on social media showed a recent Harvard graduate threatening to stab anyone who said “all lives matter.” In her melodrama, she tried to sound intimidating with her histrionics.

She won a huge audience as she intended. But her video also came to the attention of the company that was going to give her an internship later this summer, Deloitte, which decided it didn’t want to add an intern who threatened to kill strangers who said something she didn’t like.

This wouldn’t have been much of a story. But then the narcissistic Harvard alum posted a very different video—one that showed her weeping in a near-fetal position.

She fought back tears while complaining how unfair the world had been to her. Her initial TikTok post had earned cruel pushback from the social media jungle she had courted. Deloitte, she sobbed, was mean and hurtful. And she wanted the world to share her pain.

The Harvard grad instantly became an unwitting poster girl for the current protest movement and the violence that has accompanied it. What turns off millions of Americans about the statue topplingthe looting, the threats, and the screaming in the faces of police is the schizophrenic behavior of so many of the would-be revolutionaries.

On one hand, those toppling statues or canceling their own careers on the internet pose as vicious Maoists—the hard-core shock troops of the revolution. Their brand is vile profanity, taunts to police, firebombs, and spray paint.

In homage to Italy’s blackshirts of the past, they wear black hoodies, don makeshift helmets, and strap on ad hoc protective padding—part lacrosse attire, part cinematic Road Warrior costume.

The televised stereotype of the Antifa activist is a physically unimpressive but violent-talking revolutionary. He seems to strut in laid-back, blue-city Minneapolis but wisely avoids the suburbs and small towns of the nation’s red states. He spits at police when standing beside fellow agitators but would never do that when alone confronting an autoworker or welder.

When police march against the Antifa crowd and their appendages in order to clear the streets, they often scream like preteens, objecting to mean officers who dare to cross them.

When arrested, the trash talkers are usually terrified of being jailed or of having an arrest on their records.

Federal authorities are currently searching thousands of videos to ferret out looters, arsonists, and assailants. Perpetrators who are caught are shocked that the evidence that they once posted online in triumphant braggadocio is now being used to charge them with felonies.

What is going on?

Black Lives MatterAntifa, and their large numbers of imitators and loosely organized wannabes are mostly made up of middle-class youth, often either students or graduates. They deem themselves the brains of the rioting, the most woke of the demonstrators, the most sophisticated of the iconoclasts.

In truth, they are also the most paranoid about being charged or being hurt.

What explains the passive aggressive nature of these protesters and rioters?

Many no doubt are indebted, with large, unpaid student loans. Few seem in a hurry to get up at 6 a.m. each day to go to work to service loans that would take years to pay in full.

While some of those arrested are professionals, many are not. Few seem to be earning the sort of incomes that would allow them to marry, have children, pay off student loan debt, buy a home, and purchase a new car.

Historically, the tips of the spears of cultural revolutions are accustomed to comfort. But they grow angry when they realize that they will never become securely comfortable.

In today’s high-priced American cities, especially on the globalized coasts, it’s increasingly difficult for recent college graduates to find a job that will allow for upward mobility.

The protesters are especially cognizant that their 20s are nothing like what they believe to have been the salad days of their parents and grandparents—who did not incur much debt, bought affordable homes, had families, and were able to save money.

Earlier generations went to college mainly to become educated and develop marketable skills. They weren’t very interested in ethnic and gender “studies” courses, ranting professors, and woke administrators. For the students of the 1960s who were, protesting was a side dish to a good investment in an affordable college degree that would pay off later.

But when such pathways are blocked, beware.

The woke but godless, the arrogant but ignorant, the violent but physically unimpressive, the degreed but poorly educated, the broke but acquisitive, the ambitious but stalled—these are history’s ingredients of riot and revolution.




Posted in BLM black lives matter, Racism, social, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Manufactured Pandemic: Testing People for Any Strain of a Coronavirus, Not Specifically for COVID-19

[I cannot verify this information, and it has been disputed elsewhere, and I will link the other article in the comments]


The following is from a medical forum. The writer, who is a widely respected professional scientist in the US, prefers to stay anonymous, because presenting any narrative different than the official one can cause you a lot of stress in the toxic environment caused by the scam which surrounds COVID-19 these days. – Julian Rose


I work in the healthcare field. Here’s the problem, we are testing people for any strain of a Coronavirus. Not specifically for COVID-19. There are no reliable tests for a specific COVID-19 virus. There are no reliable agencies or media outlets for reporting numbers of actual COVID-19 virus cases. This needs to be addressed first and foremost. Every action and reaction to COVID-19 is based on totally flawed data and we simply can not make accurate assessments.

This is why you’re hearing that most people with COVID-19 are showing nothing more than cold/flu like symptoms. That’s because most Coronavirus strains are nothing more than cold/flu like symptoms. The few actual novel Coronavirus cases do have some worse respiratory responses, but still have a very promising recovery rate, especially for those without prior issues.

The ‘gold standard’ in testing for COVID-19 is laboratory isolated/purified coronavirus particles free from any contaminants and particles that look like viruses but are not, that have been proven to be the cause of the syndrome known as COVID-19 and obtained by using proper viral isolation methods and controls (not the PCR that is currently being used or Serology /antibody tests which do not detect virus as such). PCR basically takes a sample of your cells and amplifies any DNA to look for ‘viral sequences’, i.e. bits of non-human DNA that seem to match parts of a known viral genome.

The problem is the test is known not to work.

It uses ‘amplification’ which means taking a very very tiny amount of DNA and growing it exponentially until it can be analyzed. Obviously any minute contaminations in the sample will also be amplified leading to potentially gross errors of discovery.

Additionally, it’s only looking for partial viral sequences, not whole genomes, so identifying a single pathogen is next to impossible even if you ignore the other issues.

The Mickey Mouse test kits being sent out to hospitals, at best, tell analysts you have some viral DNA in your cells. Which most of us do, most of the time. It may tell you the viral sequence is related to a specific type of virus – say the huge family of coronavirus. But that’s all. The idea these kits can isolate a specific virus like COVID-19 is nonsense.

And that’s not even getting into the other issue – viral load.

If you remember the PCR works by amplifying minute amounts of DNA. It therefore is useless at telling you how much virus you may have. And that’s the only question that really matters when it comes to diagnosing illness. Everyone will have a few virus kicking round in their system at any time, and most will not cause illness because their quantities are too small. For a virus to sicken you you need a lot of it, a massive amount of it. But PCR does not test viral load and therefore can’t determine if it is present in sufficient quantities to sicken you.

If you feel sick and get a PCR test any random virus DNA might be identified even if they aren’t at all involved in your sickness which leads to false diagnosis.

And coronavirus are incredibly common. A large percentage of the world human population will have covi DNA in them in small quantities even if they are perfectly well or sick with some other pathogen.

Do you see where this is going yet? If you want to create a totally false panic about a totally false pandemic – pick a coronavirus.

They are incredibly common and there’s tons of them. A very high percentage of people who have become sick by other means (flu, bacterial pneumonia, anything) will have a positive

PCR test for covi even if you’re doing them properly and ruling out contamination, simply because covis are so common.

There are hundreds of thousands of flu and pneumonia victims in hospitals throughout the world at any one time.

All you need to do is select the sickest of these in a single location – say Wuhan – administer PCR tests to them and claim anyone showing viral sequences similar to a coronavirus (which will inevitably be quite a few) is suffering from a ‘new’ disease.

Since you already selected the sickest flu cases a fairly high proportion of your sample will go on to die.

You can then say this ‘new’ virus has a CFR higher than the flu and use this to infuse more concern and do more tests which will of course produce more ‘cases’, which expands the testing, which produces yet more ‘cases’ and so on and so on.

Before long you have your ‘pandemic’, and all you have done is use a simple test kit trick to convert the worst flu and pneumonia cases into something new that doesn’t actually exist.

Now just run the same scam in other countries. Making sure to keep the fear message running high so that people will feel panicky and less able to think critically.

Your only problem is going to be that – due to the fact there is no actual new deadly pathogen but just regular sick people, you are mislabeling your case numbers, and especially your deaths, are going to be way too low for a real new deadly virus pandemic.

But you can stop people pointing this out in several ways.

1. You can claim this is just the beginning and more deaths are imminent. Use this as an excuse to quarantine everyone and then claim the quarantine prevented the expected millions of dead.

2. You can tell people that ‘minimizing’ the dangers is irresponsible and bully them into not talking about numbers.

3. You can talk crap about made up numbers hoping to blind people with pseudoscience.

4. You can start testing well people (who, of course, will also likely have shreds of coronavirus DNA in them) and thus inflate your ‘case figures’ with ‘asymptomatic carriers’ (you will of course have to spin that to sound deadly even though any virologist knows the more symptom-less cases you have the less deadly is your pathogen.

Take these 4 simple steps and you can have your own entirely manufactured pandemic up and running in weeks.

They can not “confirm” something for which there is no accurate test.


Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Posted in disinformation, medical, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Important revelations shared by Dr Stoian Alexov, President of the Bulgarian Pathology Association

A high-profile European pathologist is reporting that he and his colleagues across Europe have not found any evidence of any deaths from the novel coronavirus on that continent.

Dr. Stoian Alexov called the World Health Organization (WHO) a “criminal medical organization” for creating worldwide fear and chaos without providing objectively verifiable proof of a pandemic.

Another stunning revelation from Bulgarian Pathology Association (BPA) president Dr. Alexov is that he believes it’s currently “impossible” to create a vaccine against the virus.

He also revealed that European pathologists haven’t identified any antibodies that are specific for SARS-CoV-2.

These stunning statements raise major questions, including about officials’ and scientists’ claims regarding the many vaccines they’re rushing into clinical trials around the world.

They also raise doubt about the veracity of claims of discovery of anti-novel-coronavirus antibodies (which are beginning to be used to treat patients).

Novel-coronavirus-specific antibodies are supposedly the basis for the expensive serology test kits being used in many countries (some of which have been found to be unacceptably inaccurate).

And they’re purportedly key to the immunity certificates coveted by Bill Gates that are about to go into widespread use — in the form of theCOVI-PASS — in 15 countries including the UK, US, and Canada.

Dr. Alexov made his jaw-dropping observations in a video interview summarizing the consensus of participants in a May 8, 2020, European Society of Pathology (ESP) webinar on COVID-19.

The May 13 video interview of Dr. Alexov was conducted by Dr. Stoycho Katsarov, chair of the Center for Protection of Citizens’ Rights in Sofia and a former Bulgarian deputy minister of health. The video is on the BPA’s website, which also highlights some of Dr. Alexov’s main points.

We asked a native Bulgarian speaker with a science background to orally translate the video interview into English. We then transcribed her translation. The video is here and our English transcript is here.

Among the major bombshells Dr. Alexov dropped is that the leaders of the May 8 ESP webinar said no novel-coronavirus-specific antibodies have been found.

The body forms antibodies specific to pathogens it encounters. These specific antibodies are known as monoclonal antibodies and are a key tool in pathology. This is done via immunohistochemistry, which involves tagging antibodies with colours and then coating the biopsy- or autopsy-tissue slides with them. After giving the antibodies time to bind to the pathogens they’re specific for, the pathologists can look at the slides under a microscope and see the specific places where the coloured antibodies — and therefore the pathogens they’re bound to – are located.

Therefore, in the absence of monoclonal antibodies to the novel coronavirus, pathologists cannot verify whether SARS-CoV-2 is present in the body, or whether the diseases and deaths attributed to it indeed were caused by the virus rather than by something else.

It would be easy to dismiss Dr. Alexov as just another crank ‘conspiracy theorist.’ After all many people believe they’re everywhere these days, spreading dangerous misinformation about COVID-19 and other issues.

In addition, little of what Dr. Alexov alleges was the consensus from the May 8 webinar is in the publicly viewable parts of the proceedings.

But keep in mind that whistleblowers often stand alone because the vast majority of people are afraid to speak out publicly.

Also, Dr. Alexov has an unimpugnable record and reputation. He’s been a physician for 30 years. He’s president of the BPA, a member of the ESP’s Advisory Board and head of the histopathology department at the Oncology Hospital in the Bulgarian capital of Sofia.

On top of that, there’s other support for what Dr. Alexov is saying.

For example, the director of the Institute of Forensic Medicine at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf in Germany said in media interviews that there’s a striking dearth of solid evidence for COVID-19’s lethality.

“COVID-19 is a fatal disease only in exceptional cases, but in most cases it is a predominantly harmless viral infection,” Dr. Klaus Püschel told a German paper in April. Adding in another interview:

In quite a few cases, we have also found that the current corona infection has nothing whatsoever to do with the fatal outcome because other causes of death are present, for example, a brain hemorrhage or a heart attack […] [COVID-19 is] not particularly dangerous viral disease […] All speculation about individual deaths that have not been expertly examined only fuel anxiety.”

Also, one of us (Rosemary) and another journalist, Amory Devereux, documented in a June 9 Off-Guardian article that the novel coronavirus has not fulfilled Koch’s postulates.

These postulates are scientific steps used to prove whether a virus exists and has a one-to-one relationship with a specific disease. We showed that to date no one has proven SARS-CoV-2 causes a discrete illness matching the characteristics of all the people who ostensibly died from COVID-19. Nor has the virus has been isolated, reproduced and then shown to cause this discrete illness.

In addition, in a June 27 Off-Guardian article two more journalists, Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter, added to the evidence that “the existence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA is based on faith, not fact.”

The pair also confirmed “there is no scientific proof that those RNA sequences [deemed to match that of the novel coronavirus] are the causative agent of what is called COVID-19.”

Dr. Alexov stated in the May 13 interview that:

the main conclusion [of those of us who participated in the May 8 webinar] was that the autopsies that were conducted in Germany, Italy, Spain, France and Sweden do not show that the virus is deadly.”

He added that:

What all of the pathologists said is that there’s no one who has died from the coronavirus. I will repeat that: no one has died from the coronavirus.”

Dr. Alexov also observed there is no proof from autopsies that anyone deemed to have been infected with the novel coronavirus died only from an inflammatory reaction sparked by the virus (presenting as interstitial pneumonia) rather than from other potentially fatal diseases.

Another revelation of his is that:

“We need to see exactly how the law will deal with immunization and that vaccine that we’re all talking about, because I’m certain it’s [currently] not possible to create a vaccine against COVID. I’m not sure what exactly Bill Gates is doing with his laboratories – is it really a vaccine he’s producing, or something else?”

As pointed to above, the inability to identify monoclonal antibodies for the virus suggests there is no basis for the vaccines, serological testing and immunity certificates being rolled out around the globe at unprecedented speed and cost. In fact, there is no solid evidence the virus exists.

Dr. Alexov made still more important points. For example, he noted that, in contrast to the seasonal influenza, SARS-CoV-2 hasn’t been proven to kill youth:

[With the flu] we can find one virus which can cause a young person to die with no other illness present […] In other words, the coronavirus infection is an infection that does not lead to death. And the flu can lead to death.”

(There have been reports of severe maladies such as Kawasaki-like disease and stroke in young people who were deemed to have a novel-coronavirus infection. However, the majority of published papers on these cases are very short and include only one or only a small handful of patients. Moreover, commenters on the papers note it’s impossible to determine the role of the virus because the papers’ authors did not control sufficiently, if at all, for confounding factors. It’s most likely that children’s deaths attributed to COVID-19 in fact are from multiple organ failure resulting from the combination of the drug cocktail and ventilation that these children are subjected to.)

Dr. Alexov therefore asserted that:

the WHO is creating worldwide chaos, with no real facts behind what they’re saying.”

Among the myriad ways the WHO is creating that chaos is by prohibiting almost all autopsies of people deemed to have died from COVID-19. As a result, reported Dr. Alexov, by May 13 only three such autopsies had been conducted in Bulgaria.

Also, the WHO is dictating that everyone said to be infected with the novel coronavirus who subsequently dies must have their deaths attributed to COVID-19.

“That’s quite stressful for us, and for me in particular, because we have protocols and procedures which we need to use,” he told Dr. Katsarov. “…And another pathologist 100 years from now is going to say, ‘Hey, those pathologists didn’t know what they were doing [when they said the cause of death was COVID-19]!’ So we need to be really strict with our diagnoses, because they could be proven [or disproven], and they could be checked again later.”

He disclosed that pathologists in several countries in Europe, as well as in China, Australia and Canada are strongly resisting the pressure on them to attribute deaths to COVID-19 alone:

I’m really sad that we need to follow the [WHO’s] instructions without even thinking about them. But in Germany, France, Italy and England they’re starting to think that we shouldn’t follow the WHO so strictly, and [instead] when we’re writing the cause of death we should have some pathology [results to back that up] and we should follow the protocol. [That’s because] when we say something we need to be able to prove it.”

(He added that autopsies could have helped confirm or disprove the theory that many of the people deemed to have died of COVID-19 in Italy had previously received the H1N1 flu vaccine. Because, as he noted, the vaccine suppresses adults’ immune systems and therefore may have been a significant contributor to their deaths by making them much more susceptible to infection.)

Drs. Alexov and Katsarov agreed that yet another aspect of the WHO-caused chaos and its fatal consequences is many people are likely to die soon from diseases such as cancer because the lockdowns, combined with the emptying of hospitals (ostensibly to make room for COVID-19 patients), halted all but the most pressing procedures and treatments.

They also observed these diseases are being exacerbated by the fear and chaos surrounding COVID-19.

We know that stress significantly suppresses the immune system, so I can really claim 200% that all the chronic diseases will be more severe and more acute per se. Specifically in situ carcinoma – over 50% of these are going to become more invasive […] So I will say that this epidemic isn’t so much an epidemic of the virus, it’s an epidemic of giving people a lot of fear and stress.”

In addition, posited Dr. Alexov, as another direct and dire result of the pandemic panic many people are losing faith in physicians.

Because in my opinion the coronavirus isn’t that dangerous, and how are people going to have trust in me doing cancer pathology, much of which is related to viruses as well? But nobody is talking about that.”

We emailed Dr. Alexov several questions, including asking why he believes it’s impossible to create a vaccine against COVID-19.

He didn’t answer the questions directly. Dr. Alexov instead responded:

We also emailed five of Dr. Alexov’s colleagues in the European Pathology Society asking them to confirm Dr. Alexov’s revelations. We followed up by telephone with two of them. None responded.

Why didn’t Dr. Alexov or his five colleagues answer our questions?

We doubt it’s due to lack of English proficiency.

It’s more likely because of the pressure on pathologists to follow the WHO’s directives and not speak out publicly. (And, on top of that, pathology departments depend on governments for their funding.)

Nonetheless, pathologists like Drs. Alexov and Püschel appear to be willing to step out and say that no one has died from a novel-coronavirus infection.

Perhaps that’s because pathologists’ records and reputations are based on hard physical evidence rather than on subjective interpretation of tests, signs and symptoms. And there is no hard physical evidence that COVID-19 is deadly.


Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Rosemary Frei has an MSc in molecular biology from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Calgary, was a freelance medical writer and journalist for 22 years and now is an independent investigative journalist. You can watch her June 15 interview on The Corbett Report, read her otherOff-Guardian articles and follow her on Twitter.

Patrick Corbett is a retired writer, producer, director and editor who’s worked for every major network in Canada and the US except for Fox. His journalistic credits include Dateline NBC, CTV’s W-5 and the CTV documentary unit where he wrote and directed ‘Children’s Hospital’, the first Canadian production to be nominated for an International Emmy. You can follow Patrick on Twitter.

Featured image is from OffGuardian

Posted in Deep State, disinformation, medical, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

KLAVAN: Neil Gorsuch’s Opinion Is Insane, But Not For The Reason You Think
Judge Neil Gorsuch testifies during the third day of his Supreme Court confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill, March 22, 2017 in Washington.
Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch has come under fire from conservatives for his opinion in the Bostock case, the decision that declares that the law forbidding employer discrimination on the basis of sex protects homosexuals and transgenders.

The opinion is absurd, but not for the reasons some conservatives think. The popular Christian website World, for instance, says the decision “expands the definition of sex…to include sexual orientation and gender identity.” That’s not quite right. What the decision does is strip the word sex of any real-world meaning whatsoever.

Gorsuch writes: “An employer violates [the law] when it intentionally fires an individual employee based in part on sex… Because discrimination on the basis of homosexuality or transgender status requires an employer to intentionally treat individual employees differently because of their sex, an employer who intentionally penalizes an employee for being homosexual or transgender also violates [the law].”

In other words, if Mary sleeps with John, and Bob sleeps with John, and you fire Bob, the only reason you are firing him is because of his sex. After all, he has only performed the same action as Mary.

For Gorsuch, to say that you can’t discriminate on the basis of sex is to say that you can’t admit that sex is a category of person with its own traits and nature. His opinion is pure “textualism” in that it treats the text as an entity separate from the real world. It is not “originalism,” because no person could have originally used the word “sex” expecting it to have no real-world meaning.

The opinion has internal logic but, as anyone who has studied logic even for ten minutes knows, logic means nothing if your premise is false. If pigs have wings, then cows are frogs — that’s a logical truth, but it’s not going to help you much down on the farm. So too with Gorsuch’s opinion. If men and women are the same, heterosexuality and homosexuality are the same. But they’re not, so they’re not.

Interestingly, because Gorsuch accepts the irrational premises of leftist gender movements, he exposes their irrationality as well. For instance, the transgender movement claims that transgender women are women in fact. But Gorsuch says, essentially, if Mary says she’s a woman and Bob says he’s a woman, and I fire Bob, I’m only firing him because he’s a man. So it turns out a transgender woman is not a woman, after all.

Gorsuch can’t help but walk into this buzzsaw because leftist gender theory is internally contradictory. The Left wants to have its materialism and eat its spiritualism too. They want to say that there is no difference between men and women, that they have the same desires, propensities, talents, abilities, and sense of the world. But they also want to say that a man can become a woman by having the interior experience of being a woman. But if men and women are the same, how could one have the interior experience of being the other? How would he even know he was having the experience, if the two genders are the same?

The person who understands this unsolvable paradox is Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling. Rowling is currently the target of the hate-filled, logic-free cancel mob because she refuses to admit that transgender “women” are women. She’s right, of course. Transgender women and women can’t possibly be the same thing. If the word same has any meaning, it can’t be the same to feel like a woman when you were born a woman, and to feel like a woman when you were born a man.

“If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction,” Rowling has written. “If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn’t hate to speak the truth.”

Men and women are different, and one cannot become the other. This is not a statement of “hate” or “prejudice.” It’s a description of reality. Without reality, language describes nothing, logic applies to nothing, and the law means nothing.

The movie “Blow-Up” was made in the 1960s and was a comment on the leftist culture on the rise then as now. In the final scene, the photographer hero watches a group of hippie clowns play tennis with an imaginary ball. Ultimately, the clowns hit the “ball” his way. They demand that he pick it up.

He finally gives in. He picks it up. And he disappears.

Neil Gorsuch has picked up the left’s irrational tennis ball. He’s gone.



Posted in Constitution, liberals, multiculturalism, neoliberals, political correctness, Supreme Court of the United States, Uncategorized, Victim Culture | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

KLAVAN: The Racial Matrix
Protesters participate in a demonstration in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement and against police brutality at Sergels Torg on June 03, 2020 in Stockholm, Sweden.
Photo by Linnea Rheborg/Getty Images

For those of us who truly believe black lives matter, Black Lives Matter is a criminally wicked movement.

BLM’s attacks on the police have resulted and will continue to result in more of the felonious violence that claims so many black victims – in L.A. alone, homicides are up 250 percent since the recent riots.

BLM’s disruption of businesses and encouragement of looting may cow some white liberals now, but they will ultimately increase anti-black sentiment and will slow blacks’ ability to rejoin a resurgent economy.

And BLM’s stated leftist commitment to “disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement” is just one more stage in the Left’s destruction of precisely that family structure that is the only hope of black children.

The Democrats think they can control this violent outfit and use them to protect the multi-billion-dollar welfare patronage scam that has maintained their power base for 60 years while keeping blacks dependent and socially hobbled. It’s a cruel con. Because Democrats are in the pocket of corrupt teachers’ unions, they destroy the charter schools that give black kids a chance. But they absolutely love BLM’s gobbledygook talk of “white supremacy” and “systemic racism” because those are amorphous nothings that can never be addressed. They therefore allow whites a warming sense of self-accusatory virtue while keeping blacks mired in endless self-destroying grievance politics that will never undermine the oppressive systems that profit Democrat elites.

Now, because of the BLM-Democrat complex, all of virtuous Washington is focused on police reform. Police Departments are powerful organizations and should always be on the lookout for ways to lighten their touch while still controlling crime. But while relations between police and black Americans may be problematical, surely one important source of that trouble must be the extraordinary high crime rate in black neighborhoods. When 13 percent of the population – and it’s really six percent because we’re mostly talking about men – commit roughly 50 percent of the murders, mostly of other blacks, police reform is an issue on the margins.

Meanwhile, because of Democrat welfare policies that encouraged irresponsible parenting, Democrat feminist philosophy that discounted the worth of fathers, and Democrat encouragement of sexual liberation that discounted the value of marriage, blacks now have an illegitimacy rate higher than when Democrat slavemasters were actually breaking up their families by design. Study after study shows that, without fathers, children are at high risk of failure, substance abuse, and crime. But no one has the guts to address this central issue.

The Democrat Party is a cancer on black American lives. The latest stage of that cancer is Black Lives Matter.

Yet if you speak any of these truths online or out loud, you are in danger of losing your job or your reputation. A UCLA college professor was suspended after he followed a university directive and refused to bow to virtue signaling white students’ demands to reschedule an exam for black students in the wake of George Floyd’s death. An NBA play-by-play announcer had to resign after tweeting “All Lives Matter.” And so on.

Corporations, constrained by decades of restrictive and arbitrary civil rights legislation and law, are terrified. They can be sued for just thinking racist thoughts, and the evidence to prove the case against them can include some untoward remark some employee made ten years ago in the back of a taxi after a couple of drinks. No wonder they fire you if you say anything that might come back to haunt them.

The result is a fear of speaking the truth. Which means lies win. Which means the Left and its media have been allowed to create a Matrix – an entirely false narrative in which just those very prescriptions that will make black lives worse provide whites a sense of virtue while continuing the Democrat destruction of actual black lives.

My suspicion is that a great many black Americans know this. But they too are afraid. Their leaders are invested in this system. A scurrilous con man like Al Sharpton Junior draws all his prestige and power from it. Corrupt and incompetent black politicians around the country thrive in it. Stand up to them and you too will be penalized for transgressing the Matrix.

All people have tribal prejudices, but Americans are not racist in any way that hampers success. Jamaicans and Nigerians succeed here. Koreans and Chinese and Indians and Japanese and Jews and everybody else.

Only that small segment of our society that has been the constant recipient of Democrat largesse and governance is continually mired in crime and dysfunction. That leads people to regard that segment with suspicion, hostility, and fear. Free blacks from the Democrats and they will rise like every other group in America.

But for that to happen, we’re going to need a bigger red pill.



Posted in BLM black lives matter, crime, leftist bullying, liberal intolerance/persecution, multiculturalism, political correctness, race card, Racism, social, Uncategorized, Victim Culture | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment